Information Architecture: Successes From Data Architecture A Presentation to the Data Management Association National Capitol Region May 8, 2001

1
Information Architecture Successes From Data
ArchitectureA Presentation to the Data
Management Association National Capitol
RegionMay 8, 2001

• Ted Griffin
• Office of Science, Department of Energy
• Todd Forsythe, Lisa Black, Connie Dowler
• Stanley Associates, Inc.

2
Why Listen to Us?

• Real Experience
• Planning
• Designing
• AND
• Implementing
• IT and Data Architecture in Federal Civilian
  Environment,
• With User Groups

3
Two Architecture Projects
Planning Design Implementation Maintenance
DOE Office of Science HQ (IMSC)
Planning Design Implementation Maintenance
Chicago Operations Office
4
In the Hierarchy
(IMSC)
5
Who We Are

• Stanley Associates
• Todd Forsythe - Functional Architect
• Methodology Context for Data Architecture

• Lisa Black Lead Data Architect
• Data Design

• Connie Dowler Data Base Administer
• Data Design Implementation

• DOE Federal Lead
• Ted Griffin
• Benefits and Lessons

6
Methodology

• Methodology
• Dr. Steven Spewak
• Enterprise Architecture Planning Developing a
  Blueprint for Data, Applications and Technology
• Initiated in 1997, continually updated and
  improved

7
Seven Components of Information Architecture
Customer Team
Principles
8
Results of the Initial Strategic Plan

• Initial Strategic Plan called for two main
  applications
• Many more applications existed in the whole, but
  major effort was in the main applications.
• Two JAD groups organized to initiate those
  applications
• Managers and Directors organized, trained in
  JAD/RAD, etc.

9
How We Proceeded

• Problem analysis
• Business modeling
• Logical data modeling
• Normalization
• Data integrity issues

10
Business Representatives Change the Course

• Revised Plan
• Foundation Projects
• Defined common data components
• Functionality chunking

11
Foundation Projects

• Organization
• Institution
• Person
• Project (replaced later by Work Element)
• Program Area

12
Change in the Way IM Was Done

• Organization Administrators Working Together
• Cooperation
• Communicating
• Compromising
• Prioritizing

13
State
Institution
Country
InstitutionType
InstitutionDetails
InstitutionTypeClassification
14
Foundation ProvidedData Repository

• Real work could begin
• Back to the original applications
• Integrated Financial Management Project
• Integrated Research Project and Procurement
  Project
• Revise the projects
• Execution Work Management (IMSC)
• Worksheet Exchange

15
Data Conversion

• Free form data fields from legacy system
• All records imported into IMSC
• Identify and reduce duplicate records in IMSC

16
Information Management in the Office of SC (IMSC)

• Central Repository provided by Foundation
  Projects
• Additional data integrated into repository
• Work toward single application for all users /
  organizations
• Each org had their own thought
• Thoughts were actually the same, just different
  levels of detail, and different definitions
  (project means different things to different
  offices)

17
What We Did to the Users

• Data Integrity Users must look for data before
  they add new data
• Referential Integrity Pick lists provided,
  editing isnt allowed (on the fly)
• Duplicate Squash Eliminate duplicate records
  within IMSC

18
Issue 1The System Doesnt Work!

• Due to the implementation of Referential
  Integrity, users attempted to put bad BR code
  into the system. System rejected the code and a
  helpdesk issue was recorded
• Users perspective I cant do my job.
• Overall perspective Great, we finally have
  good data.

19
(No Transcript)
20
Issue 2We Cant Use This!

• Data now has integrity. Prior systems provided
  ability to overload fields so that queries and
  reports couldnt be done on the database.
  Searches had to be done on unstructured data.
• User perspective This isnt right, we define a
  word as something else.
• Overall perspective Finally, a system for all
  to use.

21
Issue 3Less Complex, More Flexible

• With the above restrictions, and the ability to
  aggregate the data, reporting and queries on the
  data provide the same answers to all users.
  Separate queries dont have to be written for
  each organization.
• Smaller number of canned reports
• Easier to Query and get Big Picture reports

22
Unsuccessful Efforts

• All have in common Focus is not on service,
  consequently service did not improve

Total Quality Management Process Improvement Team
Matrix Management Partnering
Covey Management by Objectives
Just-in-Time Service Reorganization
Re-engineering Strategic Planning / Planning
23
IM Organization Goals

• Focus is on service
• Customers perform their jobs better

24
Effective IM Service

• Effective Service
• Supports customer business activities
• Supports customer priorities
• Involves the customer
• Result
• Focus is on service
• Customers do their jobs better
• Best Process
• Information Architecture

25
Benefits of SC HQ After Information Architecture

• Process
• IM Strategic Plan based on business activities
• Budget based on IM Strategic Plan
• IM Operating Plan based on IM Strategic Plan
  Budget
• All IM implemented supports business activities
• Technology implemented to support system
  development
• IM Team organization dependent on IA / strategic
  planning
• All decisions based on customer developed
  principles

26
SC HQ After Information Architecture

• Customer Involvement
• Business folks engaged
• Customer Information Advisory Group (CIAG)
• IM Board
• Executive Steering Committee (ESC)
• Development process requires customer involvement
• Business folks decide what IM to implement
• Business folks defend budget

27
SC HQ After Information Architecture

• Requirements
• Are tied to business activities
• Are better identified
• Can be traced from identification to product
  rollout
• Are satisfied following one process

28
SC HQ After Information Architecture

• Customer Service
• Policies developed and followed
• One standard image provided
• COTS evaluated and selected more easily
• Moving towards one data store
• Service consistent
• Interoperability
• Service more responsive
• Corporate systems take priority (reduction in
  systems performing same function)
• Communications
• Performance measures implemented

29
SC HQ After Information Architecture

• Budget / Cost
• The provision of IM more cost effective
• FY 99, 00, 01 budgets reflect significant
  increase
• Costly interfaces avoided
• Benefits and impacts of IM more easily assessed
• Result Making maximum effective use of
  available IM funding to provide IM products and
  service that best enable customers to perform
  their jobs

30
Information Architecture

• Why we like it
• Focus is on service
• IM Team better able to provide effective service
• Customers better able to perform their jobs
• Working on the right issues

31
Keys to a Successful Implementation

• General
• Prior to Project Initiation (IM Organization)
• During the Project
• After Implementation

32
General

• Focus must be on customer service and
  collaboration to enable them to do their jobs
  better
• IM organization takes ownership

33
Prior to Project Initiation

• Obtain top management support
• Produce a well designed project plan focusing on
  IM team and customer jointly producing first
  seven IA components and transition plan
• Conduct top management and customer presentations
  on IA (project plan and process) to describe
  benefits and manage expectations
• Established customer groups (with time
  expectations) to work project plan and create
  customer infrastructure
• Manage logistics
• Obtain Federal/contractor support experienced in
  IA implementation

34
During Project

• Physically locate IM team (including support) and
  customer group together
• Continue education on IA process with customer
  groups and how the current project step fits in
• Produce each component with the intent of being
  good not perfect
• Provide oral status reports to top management at
  agreed-to-intervals
• Perform good project management

35
After Implementation

• Institutionalize process
• Business customers take ownership
• Develop budget request based on strategic plan
• Have customers request budget
• IM team and customer jointly develop annual
  operating plan
• Become IM consultants and facilitate customer
  decisions
• Maintain communications
• Maintain customer infrastructure

36
What Are Ongoing Challenges?

• Maintaining collaboration
• Ensuring customer understanding of IA process
• Providing the right communications
• Managing customer involvement, accountability,
  and expectations
• Elimination of us vs. them

37
Contacts

• Mr. Ted Griffin, SC-65 Strategic Planning
  Architecture Federal Lead, Department of Energy
• [phone]
• Ted.Griffin_at_Science.doe.gov

• Lisa Black, Lead Data Architect, Stanley
  Associates
• [phone]
• Lisa.Black_at_science.doe.gov

• Connie Dowler, Data Base Administrator, Stanley
  Associates
• [phone]
• Connie Dowler_at_science.doe.gov

• Pat Flannery, DOE Project Manager, Stanley
  Associates
• [phone]
• Pat.Flannery_at_science.doe.gov

• Todd Forsythe, Strategic Planning Architecture,
  Stanley Associates
• [phone]
• Todd.Forsythe_at_science.doe.gov